Fresh FM's Matt Lawrey asked John Key a good question last week: "In 1981, were you for or against the Springbok Tour?" It's a good question because it explores a fundamental divide in New Zealand society. You couldn't be older than 12 at the time and not have an opinion on it.

But Key's answer is insipid: he claims at first not to remember what he thought at the time, then says he doesn't have "a strong feeling of it at the time - it's such a long time ago", then eventually "guesses" that he was probably in favour. Listening to it (and it's worth listening to the whole thing), the impression is that he's unsure what he should say.

The interview moves on to why he voted against the civil unions legislation and again he gives vague, even contradictory answers. He doesn't care "whether people are gay or lesbian," but thought the government was being dishonest and ought to have said its aim was really gay marriage. So he's in favour of gay marriage? No, he's "not entirely sure whether gay and lesbian people should be able to get married."

You also get the impression that the new National leader is striving to say the right thing in another broadcast interview, with the Christian TV channel Shine TV. "I live my life by Christian principles," he offers hopefully at one point.

Key doesn't seem able to articulate a strong political philosophy, even to back up his stated beliefs. It seems unlikely he'll develop one now, and it may even be that he doesn't need to.

But I do feel bound to make the comparison with Colin James' interview with his deputy, Bill English, for the Weekend Herald. English uses the interview to clearly mark out his philosophy and beliefs, his religious faith included. It's quite crisp.

Speaking of belief, Jesus Camp is currently sitting on Google Video, in its entirety. I got off the torrent a couple of weeks ago, and I was actually surprised at my reaction to it. The first time Becky Fischer started fanning hysteria in her infant flock, I felt so upset that I had to pause the video and go and get some fresh air. (Update: The clip has been removed.)

Oh, and it's iTunes a-go-go tomorrow. Unless they have a glitch and it's Thursday. Or, I guess, something really fscks up and the date fall back to Christmas ...

63 responses to this post

I know exactly what you mean about Jesus Camp. I've only watched the trailer and it was enough to unnerve me. Hitler Youth anyone?

I guess the consolation is the fact that (apprently - I think you quoted someone on it Russell?) the high water mark of Fundamentalism has been and gone in the US. Though, like all movements on the decline, I guess we'll start to see less Fun and more Mental...

Master John were busy learnin how to teach us folk to trust im with looking after us common types. Can't expect him to be bothered with that lot.Master John says the Lord has given him as proof that hard work can make us all millionaires and we shouldn't be worried about that politicis and carry on. Told us you shouldn't mix politics and sport neither.All that book learnin type thinking about what a man means when he says something is the devil's work.

I was 6 when the Tour took place, and it's burned in my memory. My Dad used to be on a roster of guys sleeping at their clubrooms in case of anti-Tour vandalism. I remember watching the marchers in the streets of Whangarei, and can still remember the words of their chants. I knew Jon Minto's name when I was in primary school.

I guess Mr Key was too busy studying at the library? Or pelicaning with some mates from over in Engineering?

I was similarly amazed by the brief bit of Jesus Camp I saw recently. While overseas we saw a news item about the film. The news item wasn't in english and the track from the movie they showed had been dubbed but you could still get the gist of what was going on. My husband and I sat slack jawed as we watched small children being whipped into hysteria in services and then going out to convert other small children.

I am constantly amazed by the new depths to which fundamentalism in the US continues to sink.

Jesus Camp recently went on my 'pimp this to everyone I know' list, along with When the Levees Broke and Planet Earth. There are some things everyone should see, and this astonishingly evil camp is one of them. I got so angry at the adults, using the children solely to further their own political agendas.

It's interesting also to see yet more 'Bill English is a surprisingly together guy' commentary. It's all I ever read about him these days. Is he just the greener grass for National, or is he actually a pretty solid politician who's decided to just get some things done for a change?

Why was John Key so reluctant to give an answer about the Tour in the first place? Was he worried some listeners might think less of him for supporting the tour? If so, were those listeners the sector of the voting public he really cares about? Probably not.

I really doubt that centre-Right leaning people would swing their vote to the left because of Key's support of the Tour. They probably supported it themselves. Or like Key, they think it's 'a long time ago' and ceases to be of relevance.

So, yes, the question becomes, why the equivocation? It won't be a good stance to take when he takes on the Prime Minister this afternoon...

I want John Key to do well, but I have reservations about him, all of which are very elitist and snobby, and which Russell has touched on in his post.

My wariness stems from an Agenda interview Key did earlier this year in which Lisa Owen attempted to 'flesh out' John Key. She asked him about his favourite books, films, taste in music ect.

Keys answers were frighteningly banal. He didn't really watch movies or read books. He liked Robbie Williams. He gave a very strong impression of being a very clever man who was an intellectual lightweight. A classic technocrat, in other words.

This will probably be a bonus during the election but I think it will cause huge problems if Key ends up running the country. How can a leader chart a consistent and articulate course of policy if they don't have a philosophic basis for their decisions? They can't, and that makes them vulnerable to the influence of their advisors and minders. John Key may turn out to be more Jim Hacker than David Cameron.

Don't they ever learn? It is obvious from the Hollow Men that Don Brash changed his mind on important issues in order to please his financial backers and to gain favour with the talkback callers. By inclinaton he is an economic and social liberal but became a born-again redneck in order to get votes. We all realised something odd was going on when he changed his mind on Civil Unions; now we know why.

John Key is trying the same tactic of moulding himself to public opinion. It seems that, when faced with a question of principle, he does not know what he should think. Perhaps he should have an adviser whispering in his ear; like Bush, or Othello.

Don't these people realise that the great tory leaders were respected because they had principles? We may not like Thatcher, Reagan and co, but at least they knew what they believed in and stuck to their beliefs. They did not trim their views to fit poll results and focus groups.

But I do feel bound to make the comparison with Colin James' interview with his deputy, Bill English, for the Weekend Herald. English uses the interview to clearly mark out his philosophy and beliefs, his religious faith included. It's quite crisp.

Agrred. Now, I can't find it online, but the print edition of the same Weekend Herald also had Michele Hewitson's lengthy piece on Key. OK, I accept that these back page profiles are not primarily political interviews, but you would think that his ideas/beliefs might get a mention in there somewhere. They don't. He tells her he's "on message", except there isn't one.

A new leader of the opposition has just been elected in Australia. As I haven't been following the ALP's internal machinations at all, I knew nothing about him before yesterday. If you're as ignorant as I am, here's a suggestion: spend ten minutes on Google News learning about Kevin Rudd, and then compare it with spending the last ten days in New Zealand learning about John Key - or not. Quite a contrast.

I know it's the time of year when we're all politicked out, but it's clearly not beyond the Aussies to combine Christmas shopping with asking a few hard questions of those who would lead us. And I don't mean Jonathan Coleman.

With Key, more so than with Brash, the question is not about how he want to sell himself, but what he really thinks and will do.

Obviously, at this stage, he's selling himself as centrist. The real question is whether this is accurate. That he has vacillated on every issue doesn't necessarily indicate to me that he doesn't have firm views - it just indicates that he's not sure what image to sell yet, and wishes to delay the questions until he knows a bit more about how his support stacks up.

Which is sensible. So we don't really know much at this stage at all.

What interests me the most is that his fortune was made as a investment banker. When I worked in a stockbroking firm in Oz, I had to support many such folks, and have impressions of the class of person.

-Most of their work is carried out in complete secrecy. To even approach them to fix their computers I had to pass through a 'chinese wall'. But amusingly, that eventually became a matter of smiling winningly at the elderly receptionist. I think winning smiles must be a core skill for IB.

-They make phenomenal amounts of money from no capital at all. I don't know exactly how, but it sort of stands to reason that being exposed to secrets about the movements of massive corporations couldn't have any other outcome. Whether they are simply paid heaps to ensure their honesty, or a blind eye is turned to an acceptable level of insider profiteering, I don't know. Both, probably. But in that firm it was the fastest track to incredible wealth for anyone that didn't already have it. I personally got a massive pay rise almost entirely from responding rapidly to a crazy demand for obscure data from one of them. Wink and nod to my uber-boss, and bingo, I'm in management.

-They are usually very intelligent. It's an extremely competitive business, and the big deals only involve few people, so they're the best people.

The rest is speculation. Some say it's a very devious business. Films like American Psycho further such perception. Certainly the work involves a great deal of ruthlessness - what other state of mind could you ascribe to people who deal in secret to tear companies to pieces, making thousands of people redundant, whilst they profit hugely? Not every deal is like that, sure, but many are. These are the exact people who would be charged with the job of selling off state assets (the firm I worked with made most of one year's profits helping with the privatisation of Telstra).

Hence the joke in American Psycho where a high-class hooker asks the anti-hero what line of work he is in, and he replies that he's into 'murders and executions'. She mishears that as 'mergers and acquisitions', her biggest paying clients.

That Key worked in this field for ages is my biggest clue to his nature. The other interesting thing, from Wikipedia, is that his mother is an Austrian-Jew, and his dad died when he was really young. How that doesn't make him jewish himself, rather than the christian he professes, I don't know. Piques my interest. I'm sure there's an innocent explanation. Born again? Must be a convert at least.

Will be very interesting time. He comes away from Hollow Men surprisingly clean - so he's either more discreet, or a better man.

I thought he came off quite well, if sounding like a middle-management is the name of the game. I like my politicians equivocating, mealy-mouthed and foaming sweet-nothings to the electorate. I particularly liked the bit about patriotism. That's what's wrong with New Zealand -- no patriotism. No matriotism either. And any guy that gets into politics because he finds it 'fascinating' and thinks it will be a good career is alright by me. New Zealand faces many problems today, and we need someone with no vision, no nous, and no committment to any kind of political ideas whatsoever if we're going to face them with mediocrity.

Mind you, this thread posits an interesting question, should we judge someone now on what they did or did not think of something that happened 25 years ago?

The common theme here seems to be that the most telling thing is not that John Key had an opinion about the Springbok tour, it is that he didn't have an opinion. Or if he did he wasn't going to tell us for fear of upsetting a voter segment. Which has led some to a conclusion that a politician of conviction is much more valuable than one without.

I dunno about that conclusion. Having lived in John Howard's Australia for a long time, I can certainly vouch that he was a politician of rare conviction, but jeez I longed for someone who was more easily swayed on matters of moral and ethical import. For someone who was, well, less of a prick.

The political ends of election victory should never justify the social cost of moral division - heck, I'd better stop there, I can see I'm starting to head down a slippery path that can only lead to Godwins law being invoked.

If a "key" point in the post is that Key is "equivocating" (on the tour, on civil unions, on drugs etc), then the radio interview is probably consistent with that....(be that savy or gutless) ....but as for the Tour posture, I am not much younger than John, and, as with Mark above, I remember the whole thing very clearly - Minto, Chants, red squad etc....and in hindsight I firmly believe that the anti tour movement was "right", but if asked to honestly say if I was for or against at the time I don't have an answer. At the time I wasn't into the idea of taking to the streets waving placards, no matter what the cause, and I probably leant "intellectually" toward the anti tour movement (on the grounds that it was "immoral" to play sport with the South Africans...i.e. it wasn't about politics but about principles), but I didn't support their methods and really didn't have much enthusiasm for arguing about it with either side - it was polemical at the time and the question put assumed that - but John, like me, might not have been polemical about it. I could easily have answered as he did - and those who know me generally see me as having firm opinions frankly expressed.

This negative perception of Key for not being sufficiently doctrinaire or idealogically driven is curious. I think perhaps the "not right" will be able to always criticise a "not left" leader for either being too doctrinaire or not having firm principles - (s)he can't win with the "not right" really. I never saw Bolger or Shipley as being any more driven by clear principles. Indeed I was always disappointed in that National "pragmatism" that became arrogance, inertia and lack of initiative. I think that our expectations of intellectual crispness (brittleness?) have gone up hugely now we have seen Helen Clark in the job, but it isn't necessarily the best style of leadership: intellectuals and idealogues don't build concensus or unity. There are aspects of having a kind of pragmatic wishy washy leader that appeal - I think it is silly (childish really) to want a strong heroic figure in Parliament - how about an honest, efficient, reasonable one that respects his or her electorate, realises that issues are often not balck and white ("ha!") and does their best along with others elected and otherwise.

Well, Marcello, I guess it's much the same as people who become... well, let us stay, rather vague about what they really thought about the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. I have a very good friend - staunch Labour man - who's ten years older than me, and he said he's now ashamed of being one of those who begged Fran Wilde to withdraw the bill before it lost Labour the '87 general election. I respect his candour, but if he was the new leader of the Labour Party he'd be fucking mad to say any such thing.

Who is the ideologically jerky John Key? Why he's Don Brash, only younger of course.

Let's see... um:

millionaire banker,white middle class male,joined the Party for one reason alone,allegedly socialist early background brought to see the light of neoconservatism in later life,politically naive from being parachuted into politics,unedifyingly equivocal,with no particular convictions other than win at all costs pragmatism.

Did I say he was at least younger than Don Brash? I wonder if he appeals to the ladies?

Simon, I agree. I do wonder why even bother having a leader, in that case. There could just be a 'system', by which the will of the people is directly enacted without any need for the anachronism of a king or any supreme leader of any kind. It had seemed to me that Clark served this role well, following polls and acting accordingly.

It seems like one of the annoying triumphs of the political right that they have made it seem that an elected leader should act like a king. Strong, presidential style is seen as good, for some reason, and people who facilitate real debate and then go with the majority are seen as weaklings.

But such is representative democracy. I guess there are just so many people that want someone else to tell them what to do and think. I take heart that MMP has led to public vacillation of the leader of the National Party. It remains the job of whistle blowers to show that this vacillation is real. Not really an efficient system, but it seems to work.

Lest we become too misty-eyed about Ol' Southland Bill, the link provided by RB's reader reminds us that he is a preachy moral conservative and fairly crap amateur sociologist to boot.

Some of the rank BS that stood out for me:

Being married with kids is just out of fashion.

Funny, could have sworn I've been to lots of weddings lately, and seen numerous children born to married couples (not literally being born, though ... you know what I mean). Maybe I'm unfashionable?

The best way for a child to be brought up is by married parents, a mother and a father.

Well, know we know. There is one best way. Talk about extrapolating from (un-named) studies which link family structure to life outcomes ... studies which always struggle with confounding variables one imagines.

But hey, if you're married with kids, sit back and relax, they'll be fine. If you're unmarried with kids, sit back and relax because they'll turn into maladjusted underachievers anyway.

I'd have been quite happy for Key to have said "Well, I was 20 years old, living in the halls of residence, drinking beer and enjoying rugby, so, yes, I was pro-Tour. But history shows I was wrong."

It was the evasiveness that I found odd.

Well, Russell, if Key had said what you suggest, it takes precisely zero imagination to pick the soundbite he'd be hit over the head with for the rest of his life: "...yes, I was pro-Tour." 'Cause we all know anyone was was pro-Tour was then, is now, and ever shall be a drooling racist don't we?

I don't know, Craig. Jim Bolger was in the cabinet of the Government that let the tour proceed, but it didn't seem to hang very heavily around his kneck. Certainly not when he was signing the Tainui settlement.